Opinion by Pete van Nuys

July 15 : Why not just let 'em die?

 So why don't we just let the Toll Roads die? As transportation they barely exist anyway, serving a declining minority of drivers. As an investment their days are numbered, too.

 Why not just let 'em expire? The question never comes up because OCTA and TCA won't hear of it. And buying them out is considered "too expensive," $5-billion is OCTA's claimed cost. But to whom is that money owed, the bond holders?

 Believe it or not, No.

 TCA's bonds are Non-Recourse, meaning bond buyers assume all the risk and TCA alone is the debtor. Here's the way TCA explains it on their web site:

Q. TCA's bonds are "non-recourse." What does non-recourse mean?
A. The San Joaquin Hills and Foothill/Eastern Toll Road bonds are "non-recourse" bonds, which means that the bondholders can look only to the toll road revenues for payment of the bond principal and interest. The bonds are not backed by the credit of the State of California or any local governmental entity; thus, state and local taxpayers have no responsibility or liability for repayment of the bonds.

 So why not just leave 'em holding the bag? I don't owe the bond holders anything, and neither do you. The Orange County Transportation Authority didn't issue those bonds. And unlike the 91 Express Lanes, which were owned by a private party, and had to be bought out in order to retire that Non-Compete Agreement (so Caltrans could perform improvements necessary to save human life!), the state of California already "owns" TCA's roads. TCA pitched the bonds with the idea California drivers would pay any price to drive stress free. Turns out we won't. Too bad. Bad idea. Experiment over.

 How 'bout we offer those bond holders a deal, say, penny on the dollar? $5-billion becomes $50-million. 51 miles of freeway for $980-thousand a mile. Sounds like a good deal for everyone.

May 5: TCA spins U.S. Fish & Wildlife

 April 30 the US Fish & Wildlife Service released its Biological Opinion on the 241 South. The document was sent to US Federal Highway Administration, but TCA got a copy, too, 'cause they're the "applicant." And, boy, did they run with it.
 Here's the link, posted on TCA's own web site. Enjoy all 264 pages if you'd like. Or you could go directly to the good stuff, page 173, where USF&W basically says that if they had their druthers, the whole mess would get moved somewhere else:

  We recommend that FHWA, TCA, and Caltrans continue to explore the feasibility of
  alignment alternatives that are further west than the proposed project as we believe that
  such alignments will have less impact on federally listed species, primarily arroyo toad
  and gnatcatcher.

 The opinion concedes loss of endangered wildlife, but considers TCA's promises to "mitigate" that loss sufficient to prevent annihilation of whole species. How can they arrive at that— and other startling— conclusions? Because the agency conducted no new studies, nor discovered any new data. As required by law, all they did was examine existing studies, including those conducted by TCA's hired "scientists." Basically they take TCA's EIR at its word.
 The Coastal Commission, however, at the February hearing did closely examine TCA's environmental claims, and as we know, found shoddy science and obfuscation. Commissioners' comments are on the record. And USF&W's opinion does absolutely nothing to refute the Commission's findings.
 But that statement on page 173 is profound in it's subtlety. "If you'd be so kind," it says, "just go away."

April 25: You comment so well! Please, don't stop now...

 The US Dept. of Commerce has opened its mailbox to public comment on the fate of 241 South. Please, though you've made your mind known to officials before, we all have to do it again.
 And I am pleased to note that the following information was copied from that bastion of twisted pseudo-libertarianism, our own O.C. Register.
 How to comment on toll road... until May 28.

March 24 : The Witch is... still dying.

 As we reported below, TCA has trucked its appeal off to the US Dept. of Commerce. Starting April 24 that agency will accept public comment regarding this issue. Surfrider, Save San Onofre, Sierra Club, Endangered Habitats League, National Resource Defense Council, and others are gearing up to defeat TCA once again.
 And once again they will need your help. We'll post a link for you to send comments, next month.
 Why the U.S. Dept. of Commerce? Because the California Coastal Commission gets its authority over the coastal zone from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA granted that authority in 1972 when California voters created the commission. An applicant's only recourse to Cal Coastal's denial is an appeal to the Feds.

Feb. 06 , 2008: The Witch is Dead! Coastal Commission denies, 8 to 2.

 241 S is as good as dead. But before the Munchkin coroner can certify that she's not "merely dead, but really most sincerely dead," TCA will take an appeal off to the US Dept. of Commerce. They lost 8 to 2 and their arguments are very weak. But weak arguments never stopped TCA from ginning up outrageous claims.
 Fortunately, Coastal Commissioners peeled away layer after layer of deception last night, exposing their phony environmental science and lame engineering standards. CEO, Tom Margo, did his best to parry difficult questions about the agency's finances, it's dubious offer of  $100-million "for state parks," posed by Commissioner Steve Blank. TCA's lawyer finally came to his aid. Commissioner Mary Shallenburger debunked TCA claims of "improving access" to the coast by pointing out that San Mateo campground was already heavily used, and only the wealthy would drop $30 on round trip tolls. "Who are we providing access for?" she asked.
 The largest disservice TCA has done over the last 20 years is distract Orange County from dealing with the real transportation issues here. Maybe now we can get on with that.
 For the record, LA Times reporter Dan Weikel wrote that Commissioners Mike Reilly, Mary Shallenberger, Steve Blank, Patrick Kruer, Khatchik Achadjian, Bonnie Neely and Larry Clark also voted to reject the project; William Burke and Steve Kram voted for it.

Jan. 10, 2008: Finance Scheme In Jeopardy-- Merger May be Off

 TCA has counted on merging the San Joaquin and Foothill toll road boards, combining the debt of both, and refinancing the whole mess with a brand new bond sale. Of course, a new bond issue would stretch any "freeing up" of the roads even farther into the future, further stretching TCA's paper thin credibility.

 TCA has repurposed their website to try to save their sinking butts. "Don't just sit there," the site shouts, "take a stand." If we weren't mired in traffic their policies have produced, maybe a few more of us would be standing.

Dec. 4: Your Taxes to Subsidize the Toll Ways

Jan. 29: TCA Must Comply, Davis Amendment Passed

Jan. 10, 2008: Finance Scheme In Jeopardy-- Merger May be Off

 Again, you read it here first. As reported by 73 Chairman and San Clemente City Councilman, Jim Dahl, due to today's poor financial climate TCA's much hoped for refinancing has been tabled and is probably, for the forseeable future, dead.

 TCA has counted on merging the San Juaquin and Foothill toll road boards, combining the debt of both, and refinancing the whole mess with a brand new bond sale. Of course, a new bond issue would stretch any "freeing up" of the roads even farther into the future, further stretching TCA's paper thin credibility.

 TCA has repurposed their website to try to save their sinking butts. "Don't just sit there," the site shouts, "take a stand." If we weren't mired in traffic their policies have produced, maybe a few more of us would be standing.

Dec. 4: Your Taxes to Subsidize the Toll Ways

OCTA Agrees to Consider Life without the Toll Way!
 In a major policy shift OCTA's Board of Directors bowed to public input and has agreed to look at transportation plans that do NOT include completing the 241 South. Though subtle, this fact has tremendous implications for Orange County's future.
 Those of us who sit on the public working group for OCTA's Major Investment Study for Measure M projects were flabbergasted to hear staffers simply refuse to discuss 241 alternatives because, as they stated, they were prohibited by policy from doing so. Only after comments from this writer and other MIS Working Group members, including the representative from the Southern California Automobile Club, did staff agree to kick the idea upstairs.
 Even before the Coastal Commission's staff report slamming TCA's plans were announced, it was obvious 241 South was in serious trouble. But as absurd as OCTA's stonewalling support of 241 was, it demonstrates the strangle hold TCA has had on regional transportation planning.
 While the results of OCTA's new sense of reality are still unknown-- and will undoubtedly provide more chances for TCA spin and distortion-- this is a positive sign. So that you may enjoy OCTA's delicate verbal dance first hand, below is their announcement:
 The 2030 Baseline assumes the existing system as it is today, combined with transportation projects that have identified funding, are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan and/or have received environmental approval. The Transportation Corridor Agencies' (TCA’s) Foothill South completion project is included as part of the OCTA's SOCMIS Baseline 2030. The OCTA Board of Directors remains in strong support for the TCA's completion of the Foothill South. However, recognizing the challenges facing the TCA's project, the OCTA Board has directed the SOCMIS study team to analyze one of the alternatives from the Reduced Set without the Foothill South to better understand how its absence impacts the future transportation system. To allow time for this analysis to occur, the public open houses have been postponed until January 2008, at which time the Reduced Set will be presented to the public for input. Following the receipt of public feedback on the Reduced Set, the study team will then begin work to develop a Locally Preferred Strategy that provides transportation improvements for South County. The Locally Preferred Strategy will reflect transportation improvements both with and without the Foothill South completion. The public will again have an opportunity to provide feedback on the Locally Preferred Strategy, before being considered by the OCTA Board of Directors.

TCA Bails on 10/11 California Coastal Commission meeting

California Coastal Commission to rule on 241 South extension

 Here's an OCTA powerpoint slide showing traffic congestion in South OC. Toll-ways are shown in light grey. At left is how we looked in 2000. Right is how OCTA's modeling software projects we'll look in 2030. Note: all toll-ways-- including the 241 South-- are among the least used roads in the county! Only major freeway improvements will relieve this congestion.

 The Reg also asserts that citizens' interest in planning expansion of the I-5 is a plot by environmentalists; apparantly the plan is to hasten freeway gridlock and force us all onto Metrolink. This website alone should disprove that claim.

 May 8-- At the end of April TCA began salting the media with talk of impending "refinancing plans." Wrapped up this latest scheme would be a long overdue merger of the agency's two, sometimes antagonistic, boards: the one for the 73, the other for the 241/261.

 While TCA spokesmen interviewed by the Register wouldn't say when, or even if, any of this would happen, you can bet that Wall Street bankers will make $-millions refinancing TCA's debt. But will the roads carry more traffic, relieve more OC congestion, integrate better with the 5 or 405? Absolutely not.